Unbecoming Conduct in the Reign ofTiberius According to TacitusDavid Appleby

Besides, there is a great difference be-tween doing what one does not approve ofand feigning approval of what one does:the one is the part of a weak man, but theother belongs only to the habits of a valet.

—De Tocqueville1

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the few positive characteristics Tacitus attributed toTiberius was an interest in public moderation: the proper, thedecorous, and the fitting. A memorable example occurs in 22AD, a year of peace abroad but anxiety in Rome about pos-sible measures to curb rampant luxury. Aware of the princeps’old fashioned frugality, and in view of widespread neglect ofthe existing sumptuary law, the senate simply referred thematter to Tiberius. He had often remarked in private that at-tempting to limit these excessive appetites might not be worththe indecency (indecorum) of trying and failing, or succeed-ing through coercive measures and bringing great men intodishonor and ill-repute (ignominiam et infamiam). He an-swered the senate in a letter decrying shameful luxury: vasthouses and domestic retinues, rich furnishings and ornament,foppish attire for men, exotic gems for women, over-the-topbanquets. All were symptoms of an illness of the soul, onethat harms the state even as it ruins great families. “May de-cency (pudor) change us for the better—the poor because theymust; the wealthy because they have had enough.”2

The Annalesmake it clear that self-interest, ambition, and

David Appleby is a tutor at Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula,California.

vice led Tiberius to present himself as an enemy of unbecom-ing conduct. By contrast, Tacitus’s own concern for decorumwas deep and sincere. The obligation to speak and behavewith dignity and seemliness, with the attendant imperative toavoid unbecoming conduct, was a principle of his moral andsocial world-view. I shall argue that one of his greatest ob-jections to the new regime under the Caesars was that it cre-ated a climate in which members of the senatorial order,Roman society’s natural leaders, were induced to behave indisreputable ways. When the public arena in Rome becamea sort of theater in which great men routinely presented them-selves in ways that were false, unworthy, and ridiculous, notonly individuals and their families were disgraced, but thewhole class was placed in an unflattering light. In Tacitus’sjudgment, this was one of the most unforgiveable effects ofthe tyranny.

Why did Tacitus take such an interest in seemliness? Twomain reasons present themselves, the first more obvious thanthe second. In the first place, Tacitus was keenly aware ofstyle and its effect upon readers. As we shall see, an importantaspect of decorous speech and behavior was paying attentionto how others perceive one’s words, gestures, and facial ex-pression. Educated Romans knew that identifying what isseemly involves anticipating how one’s interlocutors will per-ceive one’s words and appearance. As annalist, historian, bi-ographer and ethnographer, Tacitus represented reality in ahighly personal and even idiosyncratic manner. But his wordsseem always to have been chosen for their likely impact uponreaders. He created the effects that he sought through vividdescription, asymmetrical construction, oblique narration,and epigrammatic brevity, disposing readers not only to be-hold the spectacle in a certain light, but to judge along withthe author. Anticipated impact upon his reader seems to dic-tate word choice, sentence structure, and narrative strategy.What he described—wars and mutinies, plots and murders,above all the gloomy sense of impending dread under the

2

Julio-Claudians—is memorable in large part because of theway he described it.3

His arresting style tends to obscure the second reason forhis interest in seemliness, namely his practical experience asmagistrate and orator. The son of a senatorial family in south-ern Gaul or northern Italy, Tacitus belonged to a privilegedsocial order whose members felt entitled to honor their an-cestors by exercising authority and generally playing theleading roles in affairs of state. Along with this came an ob-ligation to present oneself in word, gesture, and deed in con-formity with one’s social standing. With this innate sense ofduty and appropriateness, he began an official career underVespasian (r. 69-79), continued it during the difficult reign ofDomitian (r. 81-96), and in 97 became consul under Nerva(r. 96-98). Under Trajan (r. 98-117), Tacitus delivered an im-portant funeral oration, joined his friend Pliny the youngerin a high profile prosecution, and served as proconsular gov-ernor of Asia. He was known as an impressive speaker, andaround the year 100 he published a treatise on style and var-ious sorts of oratory. In short, as man of action no less thanas man of letters, Tacitus was attuned to appearance and howone is perceived.

2 DECORUM

Before investigating seemliness in the Annales, it is worthconsidering the idea in the tradition within which Tacitusworked and in the pages of one of his distinguished Romanpredecessors. The noun decorum refers in the first place tothe beauty or pleasing appearance of a thing or person; it ap-plies secondarily to non-visual beauty, elegance, charm, anddistinction; and then it opens onto other things that are ap-propriate, seemly, and fitting in ways that attract honor andapproval. Like to prepon, its Greek counterpart, decorum ishard to render consistently with one word in English becauseof its range of aesthetic, histrionic, forensic, and moral mean-ings. In the rhetorical tradition to prepon had been a principle

3

since Aristotle and Theophrastus, and by the time of Quintil-ian (d. ca.100) decorum applied to invention, style, arrange-ment, and delivery. Quintilian owed an immediate debt toCicero (106-43 BC) whose remark in De oratore that “by ac-tion the body talks, so it is all the more necessary to make itagree with the thought”4 bears some relation to the subject athand.

Cicero’s expansive account of decorum as a moral con-cept in Book I of his De officiis helps us to approach the in-tellectual milieu of the Annales; for Tacitus, while not himselfa Ciceronian, still wrote for, and belonged to, a class that un-derstood itself as embodying the urbanity and standards ofconduct that Cicero assumed as normative.5 The discussionof what is honorable that occurs in Book I of De officiis in-cludes a consideration of the four cardinal virtues as thesource of all moral goodness, and hence the source of all thatis honorable.6 Decorum and the duties it entails spring fromthe broader virtue of moderation.7

Decorum consists in thinking, saying, and doing what oneshould, and in appearing to be as morally well ordered as oneis. Since the decorous is neither deficient nor excessive, it re-flects moderation, and this is understood not only with re-spect to particular objects or actions, but as the overallbalance, order, and harmony of the soul, and as the beauty ofthe life of one who enjoys such moral equilibrium. Ciceropresents decorum as the outward manifestation of the soul’sintegrity, the moral analogue of physical beauty.8 Decorumis thus the perceptible aspect of moral goodness; every act ofmoral rectitude, whether in thought, word, or deed, revealssome element of propriety. Just as the beauty of the body re-flects bodily health, decorum reflects moral virtue.9

Cicero also emphasizes the social aspect of decorum: thegood person’s speech, actions, and appearance make hismoral virtue discernible to others; and the good person hasmodesty (verecundia)—that is, he shows consideration forthe sensibilities of others. Much of the discussion of decorum

4

in De officiis aims at instilling in the reader a greater aware-ness of the impression he makes upon others. Cicero explainsthat playwrights have just this aspect of decorum in mindwhen they craft words and actions to express the qualities ofa particular role (persona).10 The audience knows the char-acters in the play only by what it can infer from their words,expressions, gestures, and deeds. As a sort of playwright out-side the theater, nature assigns us the parts (personae) of con-sistency, moderation, and self-control, but also teaches us tohave respect for others and to attend to how we appear tothem. Once again comparing decorum to physical beauty,Cicero says that just as the order and symmetry of the limbsof a body attract the eye and please the viewer, decorum,which illuminates the whole life, is an order, consistency, andmoderation of every word and deed that attracts the approvalof the people among whom we live.11

According to Cicero, the duties associated with proprietyare rooted in nature. This means, in the first instance, sub-mitting the appetites to the control of reason, especially inone’s pastimes, joking, and pleasures. One thereby avoids thevulgarity and sensuality of an uncontrolled, irrational, or bes-tial life, and instead lives with the self-control and steadinessappropriate to man’s rational nature.12 These are fundamentalmatters of decency, but are not the only duties associated withpropriety.

Specifying these other duties is hard, not only becausepropriety is assessed with respect to circumstance, occasion,and context, but because it is also inextricably linked to one’spersonality and character. Cicero explains that nature clotheseach of us in two roles (personae), one common and univer-sal, the other individual and proper to each. Our commonhuman role provides us with our dignity as rational beings,our moral goodness, and thus our decorum; we must use ourrationality to control our appetites and observe at least mini-mal standards of decency and consideration.13

The particular role that nature has assigned each one of

5

us accounts for the other duties associated with propriety.Just as one person differs from another in bodily size andphysical constitution, so too we find diversity of manner,temperament, and aptitude. While harmless in themselves,these differences have to be taken into account when deter-mining what is fitting and proper for each person. Cicero ex-plains that, within the limits set by universal human nature,the gentleman will attend carefully to his own particular na-ture in order to determine what is proper and seemly: “nosstudia nostra nostrae naturae regula metiamur.”14

On the other hand, just as nothing is so becoming as tofind the way of life suited to one’s own nature and then tofollow it in a steadfast and consistent way, the inconsistencyof a moral lightweight is highly indecorous.15

Decorum of the sort Cicero described stayed on the mindsof educated Romans during the principate. Lucius AnnaeusSeneca (d. 65), for example, pictured the happy life of theself-consistent man in terms reminiscent of Cicero’s ac-count.16 Again, the correspondence of the younger Plinyshows that in its general outline Cicero’s view of decorumwas still influential during the lifetime of Tacitus. Althoughthese letters adhere to a different formality than that of thephilosophical manual or discourse that Cicero and Senecahad written, the elements of upper-class seemliness neverthe-less appear frequently.17

3 PRINCEPSAS TONE-SETTER

Like Cicero, Tacitus was aware of decorum and its social di-mension, and like him Tacitus accepted it as a principle ofcivilized conduct. But as moralist and political philosopher,Cicero concerned himself with action as it should be, withtheory more than practice. As historian, Tacitus reported howpeople actually behaved, which in many cases fell far shortof the norms and ideals of the theorist. Perhaps there had oncebeen a time when prominent citizens had conformed to stan-dards of decency and comportment rooted in nature and dis-

6

covered by reason. What Tacitus saw in his own generation,and what he could learn of the reign of Tiberius, however,was that the princeps himself more and more became theaxial pole of decorum; that is, the place that Cicero had at-tributed to nature and reason in determining the criteria ofdecorous behavior, Tacitus found, in practice, had been takenover by the princeps himself. This is not to say that Tacitusknew nothing of nature as norm, or of reason as the guide tounderstanding nature. Indeed, as we shall see, the men hepraised had moral strength and good character consistentwith, if not explicitly related to, natural law. But for manyprominent Romans the preponderance of the first citizeneclipsed any view of a natural standard. For them it seemedmore expedient to conform themselves to his perspective andhis way of doing things than to an abstract ideal of naturalvirtue. The reason they used to determine their behavior wasthe prudence involved in first trying to discern the expecta-tions of the princeps and then attuning themselves accord-ingly.

The princeps came to set the standard of decorous behav-ior because of the character of the regime. Force and politicalinequality lay at the root of the principate, but its day-to-dayaspect was the tone set by the princeps himself. Augustushimself had established the pattern of effective autocracy tac-itly juxtaposed with republican institutions and the semblanceof liberty for the senatorial elite. He took the lead in mattersof public behavior, holding or declining certain magistraciesand official posts, nominating friends as candidates for oth-ers. Sometimes setting the tone meant giving direct adviceand instructions, but more often it involved modeling this orthat behavior, enacting or showing how things were to bedone. The poetry of Virgil and the histories of Livy reflectthe classicizing and patriotic outlook of Augustus and his cir-cle. So do buildings and statues like the Ara Pacis and theAugustus of Prima Porta.18 Even Augustus’s epitaph, whichhe composed for himself, has a calm tone, evokes a sense of

7

its author’s modesty, and presents an image of strength inservice of the common good.19

Noble Romans accommodated themselves as best theycould to the example or standard of the first man. As Tacitusputs it, “with political equality gone, everyone looked to thecommands of the princeps.”20 They did this for various rea-sons. Tacitus is aware that people often unconsciously emu-late their superiors, and sometimes this urge to get into line(amor aemulandi) is more effective than the threat of pun-ishment in promoting conformity of mores and behavior.21Other people realized that the new social and political orderpresented opportunities for advancement or enrichment tothose who could adapt properly. But apprehension and out-right fear were more important incentives to conformity. Au-gustus had dealt harshly with his opponents in the civil warand afterwards, and from the outset it was evident thatTiberius was not a man to cross if one could avoid it.

But how was one to avoid crossing him? Conformity wasbound to be difficult insofar as the standard to which peoplesought to conform kept shifting. A mutable standard of pro-priety was to some extent endemic to the new regime. Alwaysin the principate there was disparity between appearance andreality, between the appearance of liberty of a republic re-stored by the first citizen and the fact of one man’shegemony.22 The norm of behavior always tended to oscillatebetween the image of liberty and the reality of domination,because such oscillation reflected the nature of the regime it-self. A princeps whose public character was affable, fair, andsteady might minimize this oscillation and thereby make iteasier for others to attune themselves. He would moderatehis own speech and behavior in ways the leading men coulddecipher and respond to with as much dignity as the circum-stances of the autocracy would allow. But a weaker princepsmight not.

Whether Tacitus judged Augustus to be a better ruler, lesstyrannous than Tiberius, is not clear. There are signs that he

8

viewed the regime’s founder with irony and skepticism.23 Butat least Augustus had presented a consistent figure and asteady face. This made it possible to live with the new orderand its master. According to Tacitus, life was more difficultunder Tiberius because of the dissonance between his publicmask and his real thoughts and intentions.

Tacitus’s censure and disapproval of Tiberius are open,though at first somewhat muted, for he mentions that thetyranny emerged in stages, as the man’s character graduallyshowed itself. Before the death of Tiberius’s son Drusus in23, business had been conducted in the senate, where therewas still some free discussion. The princeps himself had dis-couraged flattery, and tried to make sure that offices and mag-istracies went only to those whose birth, merit, and distinctionmade them worthy. Taxes and provincial administration werehandled equitably. After 23, with Drusus out of the way, Se-janus, Tiberius’s sinister lieutenant, gained greater influence,with the consequence that moderate policies were dropped,and Tiberius eventually withdrew from the city.24 Anotherturning point came in 29 at the death of the Augusta,Tiberius’s mother. Livia, who had been a match for hersmooth and voluble second husband, Augustus, was alsoequal to the secretiveness and dissimulation of her son. Shehad exercised a moderating influence upon Tiberius and Se-janus, but once she was dead, they openly took action againstthose they perceived to be enemies of the government.25

The depth of Tiberius’s corruption may have becomemore apparent over the years, but all along he had been hardto deal with because he was cryptic and obscure, cruel andvindictive. Even before he assumed overall power, he wassecretive and prone to dissemble. When Augustus grew oldand ill, speculation as to his successor quickly broughtTiberius into consideration. He had the maturity and the mil-itary experience necessary to rule but suffered from the con-genital arrogance of the Claudian family, and “many signs ofa cruel character broke out, try though he might to control

9

them.” His time spent on Rhodes, which was called retire-ment but was in fact exile, had been filled with anger, deceit,and hidden passions.26

The first notable deed of Tiberius’s principate was one ofviolence and deception. He ordered the murder of PostumusAgrippa, grandson of Augustus and possible rival forsupreme power, and then pretended his father had com-manded it.27

In his treatment of the senate and the magistrates Tiberiuswas also hard to read. Immediately after the death of Augus-tus, he acted “as though the republic still existed and asthough he was doubtful about taking up command: even theedict by which he summoned the senators to assemble wasissued in virtue of the tribunician power that he had acceptedfrom Augustus. The words of the edict were few and verymodest.”28 But in sharp contrast to the edict and his apparentconcern for republicanism were his actions. He had armedguards at the court, soldiers in the forum, soldiers in the sen-ate house; he sent letters to the army as a veteran leaderwould, and never showed hesitation except when he spokein the senate.29 Tacitus reports that the main cause ofTiberius’s fear was the thought that his nephew, Germanicus,who commanded a large army and was extremely popular athome, might prefer to have rule instead of just waiting for it.Also, Tiberius wanted to make it seem that he had been calledand chosen by the state rather than forced on it through hismother’s ambition in getting Augustus to adopt him. Tacitusadds that it later became known that Tiberius pretended tohesitate in order to ferret out the intentions of the senators,carefully remembering what he took to be their expressionsof hostility so that he could eventually exact revenge.30

At times it seemed that Tiberius was reserved and crypticbecause he suspected treachery. Certainly he had enemies,some open, others camouflaged. Germanicus, Agrippina, andtheir supporters he considered rivals, and mistrusted.31 Au-gustus was said to have given Tiberius a list of men to

10

watch.32 In public or private, he was capable of receiving in-sult with apparent equanimity, but he did not forget a slight,storing up his anger even over a period of years.33 Sejanusknew Tiberius’s suspicious and credulous (suspicionum etcredendi temeritas) character, and after the princeps’ with-drawal to the island of Caprae in 28 he supplied informationcarefully selected to arouse and channel it.34 People evenwondered about the quality of the relationship betweenTiberius and his mother, which looked amicable on the sur-face but which included unmistakable indications of bitter-ness.35

Misdirection was a tactic for Tiberius, as, for instance, in16 when he showed favor and friendship to Marcus Scribo-nius Libo Drusus, who had been denounced privately for trea-sonous plotting. In private conversation with Libo, “Tiberiuscould have halted all his words and deeds, but he preferredto know them.”36 But in the sequel the utility of concealmentwas less apparent. Once Libo came to trial before the Senate,he directed supplications to Tiberius who listened with ablank expression, and Tiberius read out the charges andnames of the accusers in a moderate tone of voice thatseemed neither to minimize nor exaggerate the charges.37

At other times, shame caused Tiberius to avoid the publicgaze. Tacitus reports that Tiberius’s son Drusus led a life offrivolity—theater and arena by day, banquets by night—pur-suing the pleasures often sought by young men. His father,by contrast, kept to himself and led a joyless life of darkwatchfulness and malevolent undertakings.38 Tacitus suspectsthat Tiberius withdrew permanently from Rome in 26 notonly because of the influence of Sejanus and an aversion tohis mother, but to lead his vicious and licentious life insecret.39

Quite aside from their utility, however, opacity and con-cealment seemed to suit Tiberius. He prized dissimulation ashis own greatest virtue, clinging to it all his life.40 He pro-jected his personal preference for secrecy onto the divine

11

when in 15 he rejected a proposal to open the Sibylline booksto seek guidance in responding to recent destructive floodingof the Tiber.41 He habitually mingled jest and earnestness,42and routinely spoke in euphemisms.43 Only shock or crisisprovoked outbursts of frankness, and these could be danger-ous, as when anger toward personal enemies caused lapsesin his prudent moderation.44 Even when advanced age andillness brought him close to death, Tiberius pretended (simu-lans) to be healthy, and Tacitus remarks that dissimulation(dissimulatio) was the last power to leave him.45

Although the speeches of Tiberius often carried a doublemeaning,46 sometimes they were simply inscrutable. After thefuneral of Augustus, his address to the senate was so uncer-tain and ambiguous that his intended meaning was impossibleto understand.47 Again, in 20, at the trial for treason, magic,and adultery of Lepida from the illustrious gens Aemilia,Tiberius “mixed signs of anger and clemency,” and inter-vened in the proceedings in ways that some considered non-autocratic, but others saw as prejudicial to the defendant.Lepida was condemned and exiled.48

Doubt often enshrouded the real thoughts and feelings ofTiberius, but it must have been apparent to all that he waswatching. The more they looked to him for clues of his ex-pectations, the more they were aware of being under scrutiny.He and his friends and informers attended to their words andactions, their gestures and appearances.

He watched the senators carefully, twisting their wordsand facial expressions into criminal significance, and storingthem away in his memory, as was mentioned earlier.49 Evenat a distance Tiberius was informed not only about the actionsof important men, but about their appearance and comport-ment. While Germanicus toured Egypt, word reachedTiberius of the manner of his dress and behavior, that it wasdisagreeably informal and Hellenic, comparable to that ofScipio Africanus while he was in Sicily.50 Thus, finding them-selves under scrutiny, those around him sought to make sense

12

of Tiberius’s thoughts and desires so as to conform them-selves to his expectations.

4. VARIETIES OF CONFORMITY

People who came into contact with Tiberius behaved in waysthat reflected not only the opacity of the princeps but alsotheir own fear, ambition, corruption, and sometimes evenmoral strength. That is, in most—but not all—cases theirwords and comportment mirrored not a Ciceronian standardof nature and reason but their more or less accurate readingof how best to save themselves, or how best to profit in theprevailing climate. Here I shall survey the main varieties ofconformity as Tacitus presents them.

Those who were most like Tiberius accommodated them-selves best to him. Men like the astrologer Thrasyllus51 un-derstood him, and so were able to conform their behavior tohis expectations. It is no accident that the two people Tacituspresents as most successfully attuning themselves to himwere the villainous Lucius Aelius Sejanus and Gaius JuliusCaesar Germanicus. Sejanus was an equestrian whomTiberius appointed commander of the Praetorian Guard andthen came to depend upon to carry out his policies in the Sen-ate, especially after retiring to the island of Capreae. To Se-janus alone Tiberius disclosed his secret designs in anunguarded way. Decent outwardly, inwardly Sejanus wasconsumed with lust for power.52 He hounded the adherentsof Agrippina in a series of treason trials, but his hope to marryinto the imperial family came to nothing, and he was eventu-ally purged for aiming at the principate itself. Ominously, itwas Gaius, or Caligula as he was called, the grandson andterrible successor of Tiberius, who came to mirror the moodand even the words of Tiberius more closely than any otherperson Tacitus mentions.53 His reign began with the murderof Tiberius.

Those who were not like Tiberius, or less like him, foundlife challenging. Most conformed in more or less indecorous

13

and shameful ways. Some went beyond disgrace to the activecommission of crimes. Some refused to conform and usuallyperished before their time. A few managed to serve and leadpublic careers worthy of their ancestors almost as though thefree republic still existed. All experienced a public discoursethat was “narrow and slippery under a princeps who fearedliberty but hated flattery.”54

From the outset many dishonored themselves by compos-ing their appearance and words in false, and therefore indeco-rous, ways. When the news arrived in Rome that Augustuswas dead and Tiberius in charge, “consuls, senators, andknights rushed headlong into servitude; the more noble werealso more false and hasty, with expression carefully arrangedto appear neither happy at the death of the princeps nor sadat the accession, they mingled tears and joy, lament and flat-tery.”55

People tried to read the meaning behind Tiberius’s words,and then to articulate responses that mirrored well enough—but not too clearly—what the listener thought Tiberius wasgetting at. The results were always dishonorable, sometimesabsurd, and occasionally dangerous.

In 14, after the funeral of Augustus, Tiberius ostenta-tiously refused the leading role. The senators, who wereafraid to show that they saw he wanted to be asked and to bepersuaded to accept power, poured out tearful prayers to him,reaching toward the gods, the statue of Augustus, Tiberius’sknees. Declining to bear the whole burden of government,Tiberius expressed a willingness to accept whatever part wasentrusted to him. Gaius Asinius Gallus then made the mistakeof asking what part of the government Tiberius wished to begiven. Tiberius registered his annoyance with a dark look andprotracted silence, but then reiterated his preference to be ex-cused altogether, and said he refused to pick and choose. Gal-lus tried to smooth over his blunder, saying that he had onlytried to get Tiberius to acknowledge that rule could not reallybe divided at all. This and further flattery failed to allay

14

Tiberius’s irritation with Gallus, who was also the object ofhostility for having married Tiberius’s ex-wife, Vipsania.56

Flattery took the form of undeserved civil or military hon-ors.57An ironic example occurred in 29 when, seeking a rem-edy in flattery (remedium adulationis) for the fear generatedby the wave of treason trials, the senators voted to erect altarsto Mercy and Friendship, the latter flanked by statues ofTiberius and Sejanus.58

Flattery often shaped elections, as in the year 21, whenTiberius recommended two men to the senate for considera-tion as governor of Africa, one a distinguished noble, theother the uncle of Sejanus. It was assumed that the latter wasthe approved candidate. While both men begged to be ex-cused, Sejanus’s uncle was less convincing, and a chorus offlatterers urged him to accept.59

Flattery also led men beyond disgrace into active wrong-doing. In the year 22, the new consul, Decimus HateriusAgrippa, proposed death as the fitting punishment for theequestrian author of scurrilous verses about Tiberius’s son,Drusus. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus countered by proposing alesser sentence better proportioned to the offense. All but oneof the senators, Gaius Rubellius Blandus, supported Haterius,and the equestrian was immediately put to death. Tiberius re-buked the senate, but with enough ambiguity not to precludesimilar punishments in future. Lepidus and Blandus had beenunable to prevent shameful adulation from becoming outrightinjustice.60

Although at first it seemed a means of attaining safety,flattery quickly became equivocal, for in an environment ofcorrupt mores, express servility could be dangerous by itspresence as well as its absence.61 This fact may have intensi-fied the search for new strategies to protect the frightened,and new strategies of advancement for the ambitious.

Servitude rapidly assumed the colors of liberty. In theyear 14, when Marcus Valerius Messalla Messallinus pro-posed in the senate that the oath of allegiance to the new prin-

15

ceps be repeated annually, Tiberius asked him to acknowl-edge that he had not put him up to that proposal. Messallasaid that when it came to public business, he would expresshis own thoughts, no matter who took offense. The historian’sterse judgment is that this was the only sort of flattery left.62

Again, in 22, Lucius Ennius, an equestrian, found himselfbefore the senate charged with treason for melting down asilver statue of the princeps. In response to Tiberius’s inter-cession on behalf of the accused, Gaius Ateius Capito madea show of independence, urging that the senate’s power ofjudgment ought not be diminished, and pointing out that theoffense had serious public implications, even if Tiberius waswilling to overlook the injury to himself personally. Tacitusremarks that Capito’s behavior was all the more infamous be-cause, as a civil and religious jurist of note, he dishonoredthese arts as well as himself.63

Shameful displays of independence became competitive.In 16, the senators Gaius Asinius Gallus and Cnaeus Calpur -nius Piso disagreed over whether the senate should conductbusiness during the absence of Tiberius. Piso claimed the“speciem libertatis” by asserting that it would be worthy ofthe republic that senators and equestrians could continue theirofficial work even in the absence of the princeps. Gallus an-swered that nothing would be more illustrious or worthy ofthe Roman people than to do business only in the presenceand under the eyes of Caesar. Tiberius listened in silence tothese undignified invocations of the dignity of the state. Noaction was taken.64

Unbecoming conduct grew worse. Just as the treacherouspath of public discourse led great men to competitive adula-tory assertions of liberty, so too did compliance and obse-quiousness gradually degenerate into wickedness, asmembers of the aristocracy turned informer.65

A remarkable instance occurred in 16, when FirmiusCatus, a senator eager for advancement, and Lucius FulciniusTrio, a well-known prosecutor who hoped to increase his no-

16

toriety, brought Marcus Scribonius Libo Drusus to trial forconspiracy against the princeps. The charges were trumpedup; Libo’s consultations of astrologers and necromancerswere inept and pathetic, not threatening. But Trio presentedthe matter as “res magna et atrox,” and by the time the casecame before the senate, Catus and Trio had been joined byFonteius Agrippa and Gaius Vibius Serenus. Libo anticipatedthe guilty verdict by taking his own life. His property wentas reward to the accusers, along with the rank of extraordi-nary praetor to those of the senatorial order.66

Libo’s posthumous condemnation triggered a flurry ofsycophantic proposals and resolutions in the senate. Tacitusomits nothing: Cotta Messalinus moved that the image ofLibo be barred from the funeral processions of his descen-dants; Cnaeus Cornelius Lentulus proposed that no Scribo-nianus should bear the cognomen of Drusus; LuciusPomponius Flaccus suggested that days be set aside for pub-lic thanksgiving; Lucius Munatius Plancus, Gaius AsiniusGallus, Marcus Papius Mutilus and Lucius Apronius votedthank-offerings to Jupiter, Mars, and Concord, and theymoved that 13 September—the date of Libo’s death—shouldbe a public holiday. Two astrologers were executed, and thesenate ordered that the rest be expelled from Italy. The histo-rian’s explicit purpose in cataloguing all this is to makeknown how early the public disgrace began.67

Some of the doings of spies, informers and accusers wereludicrously outrageous. In 28, four senators hoping for ad-vancement sought to please Sejanus by prosecuting an illus-trious equestrian friend of Germanicus, Titius Sabinus,ostensibly on charges of treason, but really because of the en-mity between Sejanus and Agrippina, the widow of German-icus. Tacitus records the names of the four, and explains howone of them, Latinius Latiaris, lured Sabinus into his confi-dence and induced him to complain about Sejanus andTiberius. To strengthen their case, the others hid between theroof and the ceiling with their ears pressed to holes and cracks

17

while Latiaris conversed with Sabinus in the room belowabout recent hardships. Then in a letter to Tiberius, the fourdetailed their findings as well as their disgraceful (dedecus)ploy.

This was material better suited to the comedian or satiristthan to the historian, but the unfortunate truth was that themain actors were among the most prominent members of thesenatorial order. Sabinus was immediately condemned andput to death. Tacitus reports this event’s chilling effect uponpublic life: fear emptied the roads and squares; conversationceased even among friends; people eyed the very walls andceiling with suspicion; it was assumed that Tiberius was tight-ening the noose on Agrippina and her son.68

Since they were entitled to claim a part of the property ofthose condemned for treason, accusers had strong incentiveto file charges. The grotesque results went beyond injustice toimpiety, as son accused father and brother sister.69 The senatewas filled with informers; friends turned against one another;no place, public or private, was safe for open conversation. Itwas like a plague in the city.70

Those foolish or honest enough to speak their minds wereat risk, as Agrippina discovered. After the poisoning ofDrusus, son of Tiberius, there was widespread but secret re-joicing at the prospect of one of Germanicus’s sons eventu-ally succeeding Tiberius. While the senate and people“concealed their joy with expressions of sorrow,” Agrippina,widow of Germanicus, concealed her hope less effectively,and thereby brought down a quicker ruin, when Sejanus, whohad planned the murder of Drusus and had imperial ambitionsfor himself, was able to point to Agrippina’s hope and herpopularity in order to intensify Livia’s animosity toward thesons of Germanicus.71 It seems likely that the brutal Sejanuswould have targeted these boys whether or not their motherhad disguised her thoughts more effectively. But accordingto the historian her failures to dissemble and conceal her truethoughts at least hastened (adceleravere) their destruction.

18

Another example of the high cost of open expression isthe outspoken and independent-minded Lucius CalpurniusPiso. He openly registered his disgust with the corruption andaggressive tactics of prosecutors, and was bold enough tobring charges against a protégée of Livia. Although he an-nounced his withdrawal from public affairs and resolved toleave the city, he apparently did not leave, and a few yearslater was charged with treason. Piso’s timely death, whetherby suicide or natural causes, prevented the case from comingto court.72

In the year 25, the historian Aulus Cremutius Cordusfaced the senate charged with treason for praising the assas-sins of Julius Caesar in his own Annales. Because his accus-ers were minions of Sejanus, and judging by the grimexpression (trux vultus) of Tiberius, the outcome of the casewas not in doubt. Knowing that death was near, Cremutiusdefended himself with dignity, calmly adducing examplesfrom the Roman tradition of legitimate free expression. Cre-mutius was allowed to starve himself to death. The senatevoted to have his books burned.73

Because Tacitus’s Annales contain many examples of thedanger of openness and candor, we suspect irony when he re-ports candor going unpunished. In the wake of Sejanus’s fall,the backlash that engulfed his associates prompted most peo-ple to pretend they had not been his friends. But the eques-trian Marcus Terentius was unapologetic. He had been thefriend of Sejanus, who was himself the friend of Caesar; itwas more fitting for an equestrian to obey than to challengethe policies of his superiors; and his friendship with Sejanushad ended when Tiberius’s did. Terentius escaped punish-ment. His accusers suffered exile or execution. Tacitus cannothave missed the irony that the only person saved by tellingthe truth in a brave speech (constantia orationis) was an as-sociate of Sejanus.74

Although he admired their refusal to accommodate them-selves to the expectations and tone set by the autocrat, Tacitus

19

did not give his highest praise to those who courted deaththrough outspoken opposition. Whether what bothered Taci-tus about these men was the jarring quality of their extremedissonance or their failure to benefit the state in a more sus-tained way, he did not say. But it is clear that he reserved hishighest admiration for those who managed to have dignifiedand honorable public careers despite the princeps. Doing sounder Tiberius was very difficult—but not impossible.

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus was praised as dignified andwise because he so often managed to reduce the harm doneby flatterers, and because he possessed enough moderationto stay on working terms with Tiberius. His case even ledTacitus to wonder whether fate and chance of birth controlmen’s destinies, or whether their own decisions allow somemen to find a safe course between dangerous insubordinationand ugly servility.75 In 17, Marcus Furius Camillus, the pro-consular governor of Africa, revived his family’s ancient rep-utation for military glory (decus militiae) by defeating theNumidian leader Tacfarinus. Tiberius praised him in the sen-ate, and he was voted an honorary triumph which he lived toenjoy, Tacitus comments, because of his modest behavior.76We read of some others who also lived in a manner worthyof their great family and died peacefully.77

In the Annales, references to distinguished men in thereign of Tiberius who managed to avoid the extremes of baseconformity and perilous honesty but still have careers of pub-lic service are few and not presented in much detail. To seeclearly portrayed the career and record of the sort of man Tac-itus most admired, one may turn to his own father-in-law,Gnaeus Julius Agricola (40-93), about whom Tacitus com-posed a Vita.78

The son of a senator from Gallia Narbonensis (the mod-ern Provence), he had an impressive administrative and mil-itary career. His extensive military campaigns in Britainoccurred during the reign of the tyrannical Domitian (81-96),and Tacitus admired his ability to distinguish himself on be-

20

half of the state without incurring the lethal wrath of the prin-ceps.79 When confronting the notoriously hot-headed Domit-ian in person, Agricola softened him with his prudence andmoderation, and refrained from seeking renown and a swiftend by open defiance and the useless assertion of liberty.80“Let those who habitually admire disobedience know thateven under bad rulers there are great men, and that a decentregard for authority, if backed by hard work and militarytoughness, is even more praiseworthy than the death-seekingperilous course, of no use to the state, through which somebecame famous.”81 In short, Tacitus praised Agricola for hisnoble public service under difficult circumstances. Avoidingboth craven compliance and ostentatious martyrdom, Agri-cola played his part with a seemliness worthy of his fore-bears. He might have lived longer but could not have livedbetter.82

5. CONCLUSION

With few exceptions, then, the Tiberian books of the Annalesare as somber as the reign they chronicle. Tacitus was awareof this, and expressed regret over the tedious character of theills he catalogued,83 and in general over the narrow and in-glorious scope of his project (in arto et ingloriosus labor).84The times he chronicled were infected and dirty with servility(infecta et adulatione sordida). But the historian had a moralpurpose, to record the virtue of those who had measured up,and the disgrace of those who had fallen so short of the dig-nity of their family and order. The wicked might be deterredby the certainty of posthumous infamy.85 Even when thebooks of historians are burned, it is folly to imagine that thepower of today can snuff out the memory of the future. Quitethe reverse, for repressed thought grows in prestige, and con-querors, together with those who behave as brutally as con-querors, only achieve dishonor (dedecus) for themselves andrenown for their victims.86

Besides its moral aim, Tacitus mentioned one other value

21

of the work. Admitting that the dossier of minor events cen-tered on the princeps makes tedious reading, Tacitus insistedthat such a history is useful for examining “matters that seemtrivial at first glance, from which the movements of greatthings often arise.”87 Here, the modern reader might antici-pate a reference to patterns of group behavior that set in mo-tion impersonal and potentially disruptive social forces.Persistent dishonorable behavior of the leading men mightbring their entire order into disrepute. In turn, questions aboutthe possible disjunction between reality and appearance inthe leading order could easily provoke tremors of doubt aboutsocial hierarchy. In such a scenario, decorum would be notonly a matter of the self-respect of a few score senators, itwould also ultimately be linked to something elemental andtectonic in Roman society itself. Whether Tacitus thoughtalong these lines is not clear. But he wrote that, since the bal-anced and mixed form of government is seldom found inpractice, and is short-lived even when it is found, the prudentman will familiarize himself with the leading actors in what-ever form of government happens to prevail currently: therule of the best men, of the many, or, as in Tacitus’s time, ofthe autocrat. For most people, the best way to learn how tobehave effectively and honorably is to study the experienceof others.88

Half a century ago Ronald Syme remarked that as “a formof government the principate was essentially equivocal, andthe nobilitaswas called to play a false role therein, forfeitingpower but ostensibly retaining honour and prestige.”89 Falsethe part might have been, but at least under a morally andpsychologically steady princeps one could play it with somedignity. As de Tocqueville saw, weakness might compel oneto play a false part, but one who feigns approval of that falsepart is truly base. Under Tiberius, however, the quest for se-curity or advancement led men to guess at, and conform to,his desires and expectations. They gradually attuned them-selves to a standard far removed from any persona nature

22

might assign or reason discern. It was Tacitus’s somber ge-nius to recognize that the danger of such attunement was thata man might become the person he pretended to be, therebyconfirming the contemptuous judgment of Tiberius himselfthat the senators were “men fit to be slaves.”90

NOTES1. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America,, trans. Harvey Mans-field and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000),246. For their helpful comments on drafts of this essay, I am grateful toBob Haynie, John Goyette, and Meghan Parker. I dedicate the article toMark Morford, my teacher and friend.2. Cornelii Taciti Annalium ab excessu divi Augusti libri, ed. C. D. Fisher(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906), 119-120. (Hereafter abbreviatedAnnales.) For comments on Tacitus’s views within the context of Romanthought about luxury, see Christopher Berry, The Idea of Luxury: A Con-ceptual and Historical Investigation (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1994), 67-70. See also Annales, 92-95 for Tiberius’s statementabout decorous and moderate public mourning.3. As Ronald Syme put it, “men and dynasties pass, but style abides.”Ronald Syme, Tacitus, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958),Vol. 2, 624. Still worthwhile for understanding Tacitus’s literary strategiesare Einar Löfstedt, “On the Style of Tacitus,” Journal of Roman Studies38 (1948): 1-8, and Uwe Rademacher, Die Bildkunst des Tacitus(Hildesheim: Olms Verlag, 1975). Francesca Santoro L’Hoir, Tragedy,Rhetoric, and the Historiography of Tacitus’ Annales (Ann Arbor: Uni-verstiy of Michigan Press, 2006) draws attention to the influence of Greekdrama upon Tacitus.4. Cicero, De oratore, trans. E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham, Loeb Classi-cal Library, Vol. 349 (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1942), 178: “Estenim actio quasi sermo corporis, quo magis menti congruens esse debet.” 5. That Tacitus wrote for “elite males of senatorial and equestrian status,”is demonstrated in S. H. Rutledge, “Trajan and Tacitus’ Audience: ReaderReception of Annals 1-2,” Ramus 27.1 (1998): 141.6. Cicero’s view of decorum occupies a place within a longer moral tra-

23

dition that reached back at least as far as Panaetius of Rhodes (secondcentury BC), whose own treatise, On Duty, was a main source for Cic-ero’s De officiis. See the editorial introduction to Cicero: On Duties, ed.M. T. Griffin and E. M. Atkins (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress),xix-xxi. 7. Cicero, De officiis, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 30 (Boston: HarvardUniversity Press, 1913), 182.8. Cicero, De officiis, 14-16.9. Cicero, De officiis, 98.10. Cicero, De officiis, 97; see also Cicero, De oratore, Loeb ClassicalLibrary, Vol. 348 (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1942), 378, for an-other example of the convergence of theatrical and oratorical decorum. 11. Cicero, De officiis, 100.12. Cicero, De officiis, 102-108. Still illuminating for a discussion of Ci-cero’s place within the history of doctrines of natural law is Felix Flück-iger, Geschichte des Naturrechtes: Altertum und Frühmittelalter (Zurich:Evangelischer Verlag, 1954), 221-238.13. Cicero, De officiis, 108.14. “We may judge our activities by the measure of our own nature.” Cic-ero, De officiis, 112. In connection with discerning what is right for one-self, Cicero mentions two more personae that we must play, one imposedby chance or circumstance, the other a matter of our own choice. See Deofficiis, 116-118; and for discussion see Christopher Gill, “Personhoodand Personality: The Four-Personae Theory in Cicero, De Officiis 1,” Ox-ford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 6 (1988): 169-199.15. Cicero, De officiis, 122 and 126-128.16. Seneca, Letter 120 in Epistola, trans. Richard M. Gummere, LoebClassical Library, Vol. 77 (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1925), 386and 388. On this passage within a larger context see Christopher Gill, TheStructured Self in Hellenistic and Roman Thought (Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2006), 163. See also Seneca, De constantia sapientis, LoebClassical Library, Vol. 214 (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1928), 102and 104.17. Pliny praises those who manifest constantia, dignitas, verecundia, ordecor in word, deed and appearance; his disapproval attaches to their op-posites. For a careful study of the letters see Stanley Hoffer, The Anxietiesof Pliny the Younger (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1999).18. See Paul Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988).

24

19. See Res gestae divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augus-tus, ed. P. A. Brunt and J. M. Moore (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1967), 34-36.20. Tacitus, Annales, 3: “omnes exuta aequalitate iussa principis as-pectare.”21. Tacitus, Annales, 121: “obsequium inde in principem et aemulandiamor validior quam poena ex legibus et metus.”22. Two examples from the reign of Tiberius should suffice to illustratea characteristic that Tacitus attributes to the regime as a whole. WhenTiberius speaks of free elections open to men of talent, Tacitus (Annales,47) comments: “speciosa verbis, re inania aut subdola, quantoque maiorelibertatis imagine tegebantur, tanto eruptura ad infensius servitium”(“things attractive in speech, but in fact meaningless or deceptive, andthe more they were represented in the figure of freedom, the more theywere preparing to break out into more dangerous subjection”). In a dif-ferent context, Tacitus remarks (Annales, 122): “Sed Tiberius, vim prin-cipatus sibi firmans, imaginem antiquitatis senatui praebebat postulataprovinciarum ad disquisitionem patrum mittendo.” (“But Tiberius, whileestablishing the power of the principate in himself, was keeping up theimage of the old senate by sending the demands of the provinces to bedealt with by the senators.”)23. For evidence and discussion see Syme, Tacitus, Vol. 1, 397-416.24. Tacitus, Annales, 135-136. Note the turning point that occurs with thewords “Tiberio mutati in deterius principatus initium ille annus attulit”(“that year brought for Tiberius the beginning of the principate’s changefor the worse”) and “donec morte Drusi verterentur” (“until thingschanged with the death of Drusus”).25. Tacitus, Annales, 177: “Ceterum ex eo praerupta iam et urgens dom-inatio” (“But from that point on there was precipitate and acute despot-ism”). For another statement of the gradual disclosure of Tiberius’s realcharacter, see Annales, 211.26. Tacitus, Annales, 3: “sed vetere atque insita Claudiae familiae super-bia, multaque indicia saevitiae, quamquam premantur, erumpere. . . ; neiis quidem annis quibus Rhodi specie secessus exul egerit aliud quamiram et simulationem et secretas libidines meditatum” (“but the old andinnate arrogance of the Claudian family, together with many indicationsof cruelness, although repressed, burst forth. . . ; not even during the yearshe passed in exile on Rhodes under the cover of retirement was he med-itating anything but anger and dissimulation and concealed lust”). EvenAugustus acknowledged objectionable irregularities in Tiberius’s deport-

25

ment, dress, and habits; see Annales, 8: “Etenim Augustus paucis anteannis, cum Tiberio tribuniciam potestatem a patribus rursum postularet,quamquam honora oratione, quaedam de habitu cultuque et institutis eiusieceret quae velut excusando exprobraret.” (“Even Augustus a few yearsearlier, when he was once again requesting from the senators the tribuni-cian power for Tiberius, although speaking approvingly, let fall certainindications about his attitude, dress, and manners of which he disap-proved, even though he was excusing them.”)27. Tacitus, Annales, 4: “Nihil de ea re Tiberius apud senatum disseruit:patris iussa simulabat.” (“Tiberius discussed nothing of this with the sen-ate: he pretended it was the father’s command.”) Again, for the murderof Sempronius Graccus in 14 Tiberius tried to shift blame from himselfonto the proconsul of Africa. See Annales, 31: “Quidam non Roma eosmilites, sed ab L. Asprenate pro consule Africae missos tradidere auctoreTiberio, qui famam caedis posse in Asprenatem verti frustra speraverat.”(“Some have said that these soldiers were not sent from Rome, but by L.Asprenas, proconsul of Africa, at the urging of Tiberius, who had hopedin vain that the blame for the murder could be pinned on Asprenas.”)28. Tacitus, Annales, 5: “. . . tamquam vetere re publica et ambiguus im-perandi: ne edictum quidem, quo patres in curiam vocabat, nisi tribuniciaepotestatis praescriptione posuit sub Augusto acceptae. Verba edicti fuerepauca et sensu permodesto.”29. Tacitus, Annales, 5: “nusquam cunctabundus nisi cum in senatu lo-queretur” (“never hesitant except when he was speaking in the senate”).30. Tacitus, Annales, 5: “Postea cognitum est ad introspiciendas etiamprocerum voluntates inductam dubitationem: nam verba vultus in crimendetorquens recondebat.” (“Afterwards it was recognized that the hesita-tion was also put on in order to observe the intentions of the leaders: for,twisting a look, he would store up insults.”)31. For example, Tacitus, Annales, 36 and 40-41.32. Tacitus, Annales, 10.33. Tacitus, Annales, 144, in relation to the slight of Lucius CalpurniusPiso, several years earlier: “Quae in praesens Tiberius civiliter habuit:sed in animo revolvente iras, etiam si impetus offensionis languerat,memoria valebat.” (“And at the time, Tiberius took these things courte-ously: but in his mind, which ruminated over resentments, the memorywas intense, even if its initial force had dissipated.”)34. Tacitus, Annales, 170.35. Tacitus, Annales, 125.

26

36. Tacitus, Annales, 60: “Atque interim Libonem ornat praetura, con-victibus adhibet, non vultu alienatus, non verbis commotior (adeo iramcondiderat); cunctaque eius dicta factaque, cum prohibere posset, sciremalebat.” (“And meanwhile he granted Libo the praetorship, invited himoften to parties, neither unfriendly in his appearance nor excited in speech[so completely he had concealed his anger]; and Tiberius could havehalted all his words and deeds, but he preferred to know them.”)37. Tacitus, Annales, 60: “Mox libellos et auctores recitat Caesar ita mod-erans ne lenire neve asperare criminia videretur.” (“Next Caesar read outthe complaints and the accusors, controlling himself so that he seemedneither to soften nor harshen the charges.”)38. Tacitus, Annales, 112: “Solus et nullis voluptatibus avocatus maestamvigilantiam et malas curas exerceret.” (“Alone and withdrawn from allpleasures he was engaged in gloomy vigilance and wicked plans.”)39. Tacitus, Annales, 165 and 170.40. Annales, 173: “Nullam aeque Tiberius, ut rebatur, ex virtutibus suisquam dissimulationem diligebat: eo aegrius accepit recludi quae pre-meret.” (“Tiberius, so he thought, liked none of his virtues as much asdissimulation: all the more angrily, then, he took the disclosing of thethings he concealed.”)41. Tacitus, Annales, 44: “Renuit Tiberius, perinde divina humanaqueobtegens.” (“Tiberius refused, thus keeping hidden both things divine andthings human.”)42. Tacitus, Annales, 181: “Tiberius tamen, ludibria seriis permiscere soli-tus.” (“Tiberius, however, customarily mixed jests with serious matters.”)43. Tacitus, Annales, 143: “Proprium id Tiberio fuit scelera nuper repertapriscis verbis obtegere.” (“It was characteristic of Tiberius to cover overrecently invented crimes with long venerated formulas.”)44. Tacitus, Annales, 15: “Haec audita quamquam abstrusum et tristissimaquaeque maxime occultantem Tiberium perpulere.” (“These things com-ing to his attention impressed him deeply, although he remained reservedand kept secret everything that was very sorrowful.”); see also Annales,44, where Tiberius gets angry enough to break his customary taciturnity,and Annales, 128: “prudens moderandi, si propria ira non impelleretur”(“skilled at observing moderation, if his own anger was not incited”).45. Tacitus, Annales, 208: “in patientia firmitudinem simulans” (“in suf-fering simulating good health”) and 210: “Iam Tiberium corpus, iamvires, nondum dissimulatio deserebat.” (Now his body was forsakingTiberius, now his strength, but not yet the power of dissimulation.”)

27

46. Tacitus, Annales, 30: “magis in speciem verbis adornata quam ut pen-itus sentire crederetur” (“more embellished with words for show than sothat he might be believed to feel it in his inmost heart”).47. Tacitus, Annales, 9: “Plus in oratione tali dignitatis quam fidei erat;Tiberioque etiam in rebus quas non occuleret, seu natura sive adsuetudine,suspensa semper et obscura verba: tunc vero nitenti ut sensus suos penitusabderet, in incertum et ambiguum magis implicabantur.” (“There wasmore grandeur in this sort of speech than credibility; either by nature orby custom, halting and unintelligible language was Tiberius’s style evenin things he was not trying to hide: but then, when he was striving to con-ceal his meaning entirely, it got even more wrapped up in uncertainty andobscurity.”)48. Tacitus, Annales,103: “Haud facile quis dispexerit illa in cognitionementem principis: adeo vertit ac miscuit irae et clementiae signa.” (“Itwas not easy for anyone to discern the mind of the princeps at this trial:so much did he interchange and mingle the signs of anger and clemency.”)Also “Quod alii civile rebantur . . . quidam ad saevitiam trahebant.”(“What some thought considerate . . . others took for cruelty.”)49. See note 30.50. Tacitus, Annales, 78: “Tiberius cultu habituque eius lenibus verbisperstricto . . . increpuit.” (“Tiberius remonstrated a bit in mild terms abouthis bearing and attire.”)51. Tacitus, Annales, 192. Although Tiberius believed Thrasyllus was atrue oracle, Tacitus presents his real skill as that of reading Tiberius.52. Tacitus, Annales, 132: “Mox Tiberium variis artibus devinxit adeo utobscurum adversum alios sibi uni incautum intectumque efficeret.”(“Soon he subdued Tiberius by various means, so much so that he madehim—so covert toward others—open and sincere with himself alone.”)Also, “palam compositus pudor, intus summa apiscendi libido” (“out-wardly all propriety, inwardly the greatest lust for acquisition”).53. Tacitus, Annales, 192: “Qualem diem Tiberius induisset, pari habitu,haud multum distantibus verbis.” (“Whatever humor Tiberius put on, hisattitude was the same, and his speech not very different”). See also An-nales, 207 for the observation that Gaius had learned dissimulationthrough contact with Tiberius.54. Tacitus, Annales, 91: “Angusta et lubrica oratio sub principe qui lib-ertatem metuebat adulationem oderat.”55. Tacitus, Annales, 5: “Ruere in servitium consules, patres, eques.quanto quis inlustrior, tanto magis falsi ac festinantes, vultuque composito

28

ne laeti excessu principis neu tristiores primordio, lacrimas gaudium,questus adulationem miscebant.” For another example of false mourning,see the public response to the death of Tiberius’s son, Drusus, in the year23, Annales, 138-139: “Senatus populusque habitum ac voces dolentumsimulatione magis quam libens induebat, domumque Germanici re-virescere occulti laetabantur.” (“The senate and the people put on the at-titude and the tone of mourners insincerely rather than willingly, and theyrejoiced secretly that the house of Germanicus was reviving.”)56. Tacitus, Annales, 9-10.57. Tacitus, Annales, 116: “Dolabella Cornelius dum antire ceteros paratabsurdam in adulationem progressus.” (“Dolabella Cornelius, while try-ing to outdo the others, went forward with a ludicrous bit of flattery.”)Quintius Haterius gained infamy in 22 (Annales, 122) through a “mostdisgustingly servile” proposal that the senate’s resolution honoringDrusus should be recorded in gold letters. The same Haterius had nar-rowly escaped death in 14 (Annales, 10) when, shamefully groveling, heaccidentally tackled Tiberius. In 34 (Annales, 195), the senate votedthanks to Tiberius for allowing Agrippina to die in exile instead of havingher strangled.58. Tacitus, Annales, 175.59. Tacitus, Annales, 111.60. Tacitus, Annales, 117-118.61. Tacitus, Annales, 142: “[adulatio], quae moribus corruptis perinde an-ceps, si nulla et ubi nimia est” (“flattery, which, when mores have beenruined, is just as dangerous when there is none and when there is toomuch”).62. Tacitus, Annales, 8: “Ea sola species adulandi supererat.”63. Tacitus, Annales, 128-129.64. Tacitus, Annales, 64. Tacitus presents Cnaeus Calpurnius Piso asstanding up to Tiberius at Annales, 44, not so much because of republicansentiments as from a sense of his own worthiness to rule. That insubor-dination ran in the family; see Annales, 69. As for Gallus, Tacitus recordsanother public disagreement with Tiberius that, perhaps inadvertently,penetrated to the very heart of rule (Annales, 64): “Eam sententiam altiuspenetrare et arcana imperii temptari.” (“This motion penetrated moredeeply and made an attempt at the secrets of the imperium.”) Tiberius,however, managed to turn this to his own advantage.65. Tacitus, Annales, 126: “Paulatim dehinc ab indecoris ad infesta trans-grediebantur.” (“After this they gradually passed over from shameful

29

deeds to outrageous ones.”)66. Tacitus, Annales, 60-61.67. Tacitus, Annales, 62: “Quorum auctoritates adulationesque rettuli utsciretur vetus id in re publica malum.” (“I have reported the motions andthe flatteries of these men so that this old evil in the state might be rec-ognized.”)68. Tacitus, Annales, 171-173.69. Tacitus, Annales, 147 and 149. See also Annales, 149, where itemerges that even the property of those who anticipate a guilty verdictby suicide is subject to confiscation and division among the accusers.Also at Annales, 170, there is an accusation within an extended family.70. Tacitus, Annales, 184.71. Tacitus, Annales, 138-139; see note 55 above, which comments onthe hypocrisy of the many. The rest of this chapter discusses Sejanus’seffort to magnify Livia’s hatred. In another instance during the year 32,Tacitus records that a mother was condemned and executed for weepingfor her executed son (Annales, 186).72. Tacitus, Annales, 144.73. Tacitus, Annales, 151-152.74. Tacitus, Annales, 185-186.75. Tacitus, Annales, 143-144: “Hunc ego Lepidum temporibus illisgravem et sapientem virum fuisse comperior: nam pleraque ab saevis adu-lationibus aliorum in melius flexit. neque tamen temperamenti egebat,cum aequabili auctoritate et gratia apud Tiberium viguerit. unde dubitarecogor fato et sorte nascendi, ut cetera, ita principium inclinatio in hos,offensio in illos, an sit aliquid in nostris consiliis liceatque inter abruptumcontumaciam et deforme obsequium pergere iter ambitione ac periculisvacuum.” (“I am convinced that this Lepidus was a serious and wise manfor those times: for he turned very many things arising from the cruel flat-teries of others to better effect. Nor did he lack moderation, since he re-tained steady influence and esteem with Tiberius. Hence I am compelledto doubt whether, as with other things, the favor of leading men towardsome and their disfavor toward others is from the fate and chance of birth,or whether it is something within our own purvue, and one has the free-dom to pursue a course between severe autonomy and base servility thatis also free from dangers.”). His obituary in the year 34 (see Annales,196), praises his moderation and wisdom, presenting him as a worthymember of a family rich in good citizens (“genus fecundum bonorumcivium”).

30

76. Tacitus, Annales, 74: “Quod Camillo ob modestiam vitae impunefuit.” (“And this was safe for Camillus because of his unassuming con-duct in life.”)77. Tacitus, Annales, 167, mentions Marcus Asinius Agrippa, a man“claris maioribus quam vetustis vitaque non degener” (“with distin-guished rather than ancient ancestors, and not ignoble in his way of life”),who died in 27.78. Tacitus, Cornelii Taciti de vita Iulii Agricolae liber (hereafter abbre-viated as De vita Agricolae), ed. M. Winterbottom and R.M. Ogilvie, inCornelii Taciti Opera Minora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975).79. Tacitus, De vita Agricolae, 29: “Ceterum uti militare nomen, graveinter otiosos, aliis virtutibus temperaret, tranquillitatem atque otium pen-itus hausit, cultu modicus, sermone facilis, uno aut altero amicorum comi-tatus, adeo ut plerique, quibus magnos viros per ambitionem aestimaremos est, viso aspectoque Agricola quaererent famam, pauci interpretar-entur.” (“Moreover, to moderate his military renown—which is imposingfor civilians—with other virtues, he yielded completely to tranquillityand leisure, dressing simply, conversing affably, accompanied by just oneor two friends, so much so that most people, whose custom is to judgegreat men by their ostentation, having seen Agricola and scrutinized him,would wonder about his good repute, but few could comprehend it.”) 80. Tacitus, De vita Agricolae, 30: “Domitiani vero natura praeceps iniram, et quo obscurior, eo inrevocabilior, moderatione tamen prudentiaqueAgricolae leniebatur, quia non contumacia neque inani iactatione libertatisfamam fatumque provocabat.” (“Now Domitian’s nature was inclined toanger—and the more disguised, the more implacable—nevertheless itwas mollified by the guidance and judgment of Agricola, because he didnot provoke public opinion or fate by arrogance and empty displays ofpersonal liberty.”)81. Tacitus, De vita Agricolae, 30: “Sciant, quibus moris est inlicita mi-rari, posse etiam sub malis principibus magnos viros esse, obsequiumqueac modestiam, si industria ac vigor adsint, eo laudis excedere, quoplerique per abrupta, sed in nullum rei publicae usum ambitiosa morteinclaruerunt.”82. Tacitus, De vita Agricolae, 31: “Et ipse quidem, quamquam medio inspatio integrae aetatis ereptus, quantum ad gloriam, longissimum aevumperegit. Quippe et vera bona, quae in virtutibus sita sunt, impleverat, etconsulari ac triumphalibus ornamentis praedito quid aliud adstruere for-tuna poterat?” (“And he indeed, although snatched away at the midpointof a complete life, he completed the longest possible course of life in re-

31

gard to honor. Since, in fact, he had acquired the real goods which dependon virtues, what else could fortune add to someone who had received thedistinctions of the consulship and several military triumphs?”)83. Tacitus, Annales, 185.84. Tacitus, Annales, 149-150.85. Tacitus, Annales, 126.86. Tacitus, Annales, 152: “Quo magis socordiam eorum inridere libetqui praesenti potentia credunt extingui posse etiam sequentis aevi memo-riam. nam contra punitis ingeniis gliscit auctoritas, neque aliud externireges aut qui eadem saevitia usi sunt nisi dedecus sibi atque illis gloriampeperere.” (“One is disposed to laugh all the more at the folly of thosewho believe that, using their present power, they can extinguish the mem-ory of the following generation. For on the contrary, when natural supe-riority is penalized, its influence flares up, and foreign kings or those whohave acted with the same sort of cruelty have generated nothing but dis-honor for themselves and renown for the others.”)87. Tacitus, Annales, 150: “illa primo aspectu levia ex quis magnarumsaepe rerum motus oriuntur.”88. Tacitus, Annales,150. 89. Syme, Tacitus, Vol. 2, 573.90. Tacitus, Annales, 126: “homines ad servitutem paratos.”

32